In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people’s art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it “feels” more original.
I’d argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.
Which does not mean that we can’t disapprove of literal copies of other people’s work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it’s more or less a complexity scale.
“People get inspired from art therefore lifting someone’s entire portfolio as training data is OK actually”
Is it hard to type with your head that far up your own ass? Or did you just copy paste what chatgpt told you when you asked it to defend ai generated images?
No need to attack me like that when I’m just sharing my viewpoint.
I’m not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.
I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
OK but now do that without stealing other people’s art.
In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people’s art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it “feels” more original.
I’d argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.
Which does not mean that we can’t disapprove of literal copies of other people’s work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it’s more or less a complexity scale.
“People get inspired from art therefore lifting someone’s entire portfolio as training data is OK actually”
Is it hard to type with your head that far up your own ass? Or did you just copy paste what chatgpt told you when you asked it to defend ai generated images?
No need to attack me like that when I’m just sharing my viewpoint.
I’m not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.
I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.
Like sampling?